[Lnc-business] At-Large Elections

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sat Jul 7 06:43:46 EDT 2018


Forwarding this commentary from Joe Dehn:

==

Regarding the legitimacy of the Judicial Committee...

The situation the convention left us in is unfortunate. Things might have
been done differently. There are fairly obvious ways to fix this for the
future (obvious enough that they should have been done already), to make
the elections run more smoothly and to provide a backup procedure to
populate the Judicial Committee if all else fails. We should work on these
things, and I suppose a certain amount of blame-laying and blame-taking in
the meantime is going to be necessary.

None of that, however, addresses the immediate problem. There does not
appear to be a way to populate the Judicial Committee right now that
everybody will see as legitimate, from a technical perspective. And that's
unfortunate because the general sentiment is that having a Judicial
Committee is a useful thing.

But let's step back a bit and ask WHY is having a Judicial Committee a
useful thing? A review of the relevant article in the Bylaws makes clear
that the Judicial Committee has only two kinds of functions -- to handle
appeals of acts of the LNC and of the convention. That's it. Those are the
only cases when who is on the Judicial Committee matters.

While the appeals of actions of the convention may seem the most important,
and possibly one of the reasons why there was support for the switch to a
four-year term, I think they are less of a _practical_ problem. Such cases
can't come up until the next convention, and the next convention, if it
were so inclined, could fix the legitimacy question, for the duration of
that convention and for the following two years, by some sort of action at
that time. On the other hand, there is little that any Judicial Committee,
no matter how elected, can do to stop a truly run-away convention. It's
nice to imagine a pure-Libertarian JC swatting down a pro-tax Platform
plank or whatever, but if the convention is stacked with enough
non-libertarian delegates they could override that by the prescribed 3/4 or
even just abolish the JC with a change to the Bylaws. Sure, there could be
in-between cases where the JC would be helpful, but it's not the most
likely scenario.

The biggest _practical_ purpose that the Judicial Committee serves, and the
reason we need to get this settled as soon as possible, is being a "second
opinion" on decisions of the LNC. We all hope that this will not be
necessary, but we all know that it might well be necessary. We don't know
now what the dispute will be about, but the party will be much better off
if that second body is in place and seen to be legitimate before that
dispute arises.

This then, is the answer to why action by the LNC now could be very useful.
There is nothing in the Bylaws that gives the LNC the power to appoint the
Judicial Committee -- nor do I think there should be. However, if the
current LNC goes on record as _accepting_ those seven people for this term,
it will be politically very difficult for the current LNC to raise
legitimacy of the Judicial Committee as an issue if/when an actual dispute
arises.

The LNC does not have to appoint anybody. The LNC does not have to rule on
the legitimacy of what happened. All the LNC has to do to achieve this
purpose is to say something that makes clear that they _will not contest_
the legitimacy of this Judicial Committee -- that they will abide by its
rulings, should one of their actions be appealed.

On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
wrote:

> I agree there is good discussion to be had on plurality v majority.  But
> the fact is that our Bylaws now clearly say majority and we led them by the
> hand to accept plurality.  That is my issue.  Perhaps plurality is better.
> That is something to be decided in non-rushed and reasoned debate.  I see
> advantages to both.  As we become more diverse perhaps plurality would stop
> some of factiousness by groups that feel they are being shorted (and many
> times, I think they are).  It helps protect more minority voices if they
> vote tactically as a bloc.
>
> But the worst of all possible worlds is to have people vote believing they
> are voting for a majority race and then make it a plurality one.  *Many
> people would have voted differently if that were the case.*
>
> I don't think - suspension of the rules or not - that it is at all just to
> switch voting rules mid-game after people have voted.  Just because the
> Rules allow it isn't persuasive to the justice of the thing.
>
> And most of all, I think it really unfair to those who have the plurality
> seats.  This should be a time to relax in one's accomplishments with
> controversy.
>
> What this shows - to me - is quite obvious.  We - as a Party - really do
> not care deeply about the composition of the LNC unless it is officers.
> This would have been unthinkable in the VC race.  But hey, it's At-Large so
> okay.  I don't think that's right.
>
> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> Yes of course formal objections are out of order.  That does not mean
>> noting real issues for discussion and learning is not (not that you
>> suggested it was). As you know, I think there were some real problems with
>> the way we handled it.
>>
>> Since the Bylaws say the method of voting of At-Large, the issue at
>> present is the process until such a time those Bylaws are amended.
>>
>> One thing that is clear in our Bylaws is that there was always intended
>> to be a system of majority not plurality.  For expediency's sake and not
>> for any other reason, that has been circumvented at least two years in a
>> row.
>>
>> Quite obviously we have problems.  And just as obviously these can't just
>> boil for a month like they did in 2016 and be forgotten.
>>
>> On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business <
>> lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear All,
>>>
>>> Pursuant to the delegates suspension of the rules at convention after
>>> overturning the ruling of the Chair, the top five vote-getters are
>>> properly elected to the At-Large seats on the LNC by the delegates in
>>> convention.  Objections to the procedure taken by the delegates are
>>> out of order, as such objections have to be properly raised during the
>>> convention session.
>>>
>>> As to the Judicial Committee, I'll defer to Chuck Moulton's analysis
>>> and suggest that the LNC pass a motion that acknowledges the top seven
>>> vote-getters as the Judicial Committee.
>>>
>>> There has been a lot of discussion about convention schedules,
>>> electronic voting systems, errors in tallying, etc. These discussions
>>> miss the point.  Using approval voting for a multi-member election
>>> that does not allow for winning by plurality is likely the worst
>>> possible election method to get At-Large members elected.
>>>
>>> In the past, we were allowed to vote for as many candidates as there
>>> were positions available, and we rarely went to a second ballot.  An
>>> instant runoff or single transferable system would reallocate those
>>> votes for candidates with minimal support.
>>>
>>> If the goal of At-Large members is to represent interest groups within
>>> the Libertarian Party, we are using the wrong voting system.  If it is
>>> merely to determine who is most popular in the party, we are using the
>>> correct system, but it will continue to produce results like we've had
>>> two conventions in a row based on the nature of the system.
>>>
>>> In short, counting ballots faster doesn't matter if we're still voting
>>> wrong.
>>>
>>> Yours truly,
>>> Nick
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --
>> *In Liberty,*
>> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
>> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
>> Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
>> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
>> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
>> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
>> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>>
>> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
>> *We defend your rights*
>> *And oppose the use of force*
>> *Taxation is theft*
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> *In Liberty,*
> *Caryn Ann Harlos*
> Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
> Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
> Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
> Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
> <http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
> Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
>
> A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
> *We defend your rights*
> *And oppose the use of force*
> *Taxation is theft*
>



-- 
-- 
*In Liberty,*
*Caryn Ann Harlos*
Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska, Arizona,
Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington) - Caryn.Ann.
Harlos at LP.org <Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org>
Communications Director, Libertarian Party of Colorado
<http://www.lpcolorado.org/>
Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee

A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
*We defend your rights*
*And oppose the use of force*
*Taxation is theft*
-------------- next part --------------
   Forwarding this commentary from Joe Dehn:
   ==
   Regarding the legitimacy of the Judicial Committee...
   The situation the convention left us in is unfortunate. Things might
   have been done differently. There are fairly obvious ways to fix this
   for the future (obvious enough that they should have been done
   already), to make the elections run more smoothly and to provide a
   backup procedure to populate the Judicial Committee if all else fails.
   We should work on these things, and I suppose a certain amount of
   blame-laying and blame-taking in the meantime is going to be necessary.
   None of that, however, addresses the immediate problem. There does not
   appear to be a way to populate the Judicial Committee right now that
   everybody will see as legitimate, from a technical perspective. And
   that's unfortunate because the general sentiment is that having a
   Judicial Committee is a useful thing.
   But let's step back a bit and ask WHY is having a Judicial Committee a
   useful thing? A review of the relevant article in the Bylaws makes
   clear that the Judicial Committee has only two kinds of functions -- to
   handle appeals of acts of the LNC and of the convention. That's it.
   Those are the only cases when who is on the Judicial Committee matters.
   While the appeals of actions of the convention may seem the most
   important, and possibly one of the reasons why there was support for
   the switch to a four-year term, I think they are less of a _practical_
   problem. Such cases can't come up until the next convention, and the
   next convention, if it were so inclined, could fix the legitimacy
   question, for the duration of that convention and for the following two
   years, by some sort of action at that time. On the other hand, there is
   little that any Judicial Committee, no matter how elected, can do to
   stop a truly run-away convention. It's nice to imagine a
   pure-Libertarian JC swatting down a pro-tax Platform plank or whatever,
   but if the convention is stacked with enough non-libertarian delegates
   they could override that by the prescribed 3/4 or even just abolish the
   JC with a change to the Bylaws. Sure, there could be in-between cases
   where the JC would be helpful, but it's not the most likely scenario.
   The biggest _practical_ purpose that the Judicial Committee serves, and
   the reason we need to get this settled as soon as possible, is being a
   "second opinion" on decisions of the LNC. We all hope that this will
   not be necessary, but we all know that it might well be necessary. We
   don't know now what the dispute will be about, but the party will be
   much better off if that second body is in place and seen to be
   legitimate before that dispute arises.
   This then, is the answer to why action by the LNC now could be very
   useful. There is nothing in the Bylaws that gives the LNC the power to
   appoint the Judicial Committee -- nor do I think there should be.
   However, if the current LNC goes on record as _accepting_ those seven
   people for this term, it will be politically very difficult for the
   current LNC to raise legitimacy of the Judicial Committee as an issue
   if/when an actual dispute arises.
   The LNC does not have to appoint anybody. The LNC does not have to rule
   on the legitimacy of what happened. All the LNC has to do to achieve
   this purpose is to say something that makes clear that they _will not
   contest_ the legitimacy of this Judicial Committee -- that they will
   abide by its rulings, should one of their actions be appealed.

   On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:35 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[1]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   I agree there is good discussion to be had on plurality v majority.
   But the fact is that our Bylaws now clearly say majority and we led
   them by the hand to accept plurality.  That is my issue.  Perhaps
   plurality is better.  That is something to be decided in non-rushed and
   reasoned debate.  I see advantages to both.  As we become more diverse
   perhaps plurality would stop some of factiousness by groups that feel
   they are being shorted (and many times, I think they are).  It helps
   protect more minority voices if they vote tactically as a bloc.
   But the worst of all possible worlds is to have people vote believing
   they are voting for a majority race and then make it a plurality one.
   Many people would have voted differently if that were the case.
   I don't think - suspension of the rules or not - that it is at all just
   to switch voting rules mid-game after people have voted.  Just because
   the Rules allow it isn't persuasive to the justice of the thing.
   And most of all, I think it really unfair to those who have the
   plurality seats.  This should be a time to relax in one's
   accomplishments with controversy.
   What this shows - to me - is quite obvious.  We - as a Party - really
   do not care deeply about the composition of the LNC unless it is
   officers.  This would have been unthinkable in the VC race.  But hey,
   it's At-Large so okay.  I don't think that's right.

   On Sat, Jul 7, 2018 at 1:28 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos
   <[2]caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:

   Yes of course formal objections are out of order.  That does not mean
   noting real issues for discussion and learning is not (not that you
   suggested it was). As you know, I think there were some real problems
   with the way we handled it.
   Since the Bylaws say the method of voting of At-Large, the issue at
   present is the process until such a time those Bylaws are amended.
   One thing that is clear in our Bylaws is that there was always intended
   to be a system of majority not plurality.  For expediency's sake and
   not for any other reason, that has been circumvented at least two years
   in a row.
   Quite obviously we have problems.  And just as obviously these can't
   just boil for a month like they did in 2016 and be forgotten.

   On Fri, Jul 6, 2018 at 10:42 PM, Nicholas Sarwark via Lnc-business
   <[3]lnc-business at hq.lp.org> wrote:

     Dear All,
     Pursuant to the delegates suspension of the rules at convention
     after
     overturning the ruling of the Chair, the top five vote-getters are
     properly elected to the At-Large seats on the LNC by the delegates
     in
     convention.  Objections to the procedure taken by the delegates are
     out of order, as such objections have to be properly raised during
     the
     convention session.
     As to the Judicial Committee, I'll defer to Chuck Moulton's analysis
     and suggest that the LNC pass a motion that acknowledges the top
     seven
     vote-getters as the Judicial Committee.
     There has been a lot of discussion about convention schedules,
     electronic voting systems, errors in tallying, etc. These
     discussions
     miss the point.  Using approval voting for a multi-member election
     that does not allow for winning by plurality is likely the worst
     possible election method to get At-Large members elected.
     In the past, we were allowed to vote for as many candidates as there
     were positions available, and we rarely went to a second ballot.  An
     instant runoff or single transferable system would reallocate those
     votes for candidates with minimal support.
     If the goal of At-Large members is to represent interest groups
     within
     the Libertarian Party, we are using the wrong voting system.  If it
     is
     merely to determine who is most popular in the party, we are using
     the
     correct system, but it will continue to produce results like we've
     had
     two conventions in a row based on the nature of the system.
     In short, counting ballots faster doesn't matter if we're still
     voting wrong.
     Yours truly,
     Nick

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [4]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [5]Libertarian Party of Colorado
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [6]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [7]Libertarian Party of Colorado
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

   --
   --
   In Liberty,
   Caryn Ann Harlos
   Region 1 Representative, Libertarian National Committee (Alaska,
   Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Kansas, Montana, Utah, Wyoming, Washington)
   - [8]Caryn.Ann. Harlos at LP.org
   Communications Director, [9]Libertarian Party of Colorado
   Chair, LP Historical Preservation Committee
   A haiku to the Statement of Principles:
   We defend your rights
   And oppose the use of force
   Taxation is theft

References

   1. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   2. mailto:caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
   3. mailto:lnc-business at hq.lp.org
   4. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   5. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
   6. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   7. http://www.lpcolorado.org/
   8. mailto:Caryn.Ann.Harlos at LP.org
   9. http://www.lpcolorado.org/


More information about the Lnc-business mailing list